R' Joel Rich asked:
> The gemara and poskim use differing terms to describe what
> at first glance seems to be the same thing (e.g.)
> zayin tovei hair / bnai hair / manhigei hair / parnas
> Is anyone aware of any distinctions made between these?
The "zayin tovei ha'ir" and the "bnai ha'ir" are most definitely NOT the same thing. See the fourth perek of Megillah, not-coincidentally entitled "Bnai Ha'ir". (ArtScroll translates these phrases as "trustees" and "townspeople" respectively, but does not go into any further detail that I've seen.)
At the bottom of 25b, the Mishna talks about a shul which was sold by the bnai ha'ir, without the approval of the shiva tovei ha'ir. At the bottom of 26a, the Gemara talks about a shul which is sold by the shiva tovei ha'ir, without the approval of the bnai ha'ir. (My chavrusa and I are stumped as to who actually owns the shul, if it can be sold by either group.)
Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Click for free info on discount teaching degrees programs.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3njBfA2ZwalMQiSZgtbTEV55xAInu55bQrF7V2U7nRxJHwPw/

I was discussing with my Partner In Torah this week the concept that Jews
are uniquely different from non-Jews in that we are commanded to keep all
the mitzvot but non-Jews only are obligated in 7 Mitzvot Bnei Noach.
Long story short, the question arose "Why can't non-Jews keep Shabbat?".
Discussing it with friends we have basically come to the conclusion that the
reason Shabbat is specific to Jews is because it is an Ot between us and
Hashem. This logic would seem to similarly include Tefillin and Brit Mila
(although for Mila I heard an idea recently that since it is possible that
all goyim are bnei Avraham maybe they are chayav in Mila too).
Does anyone know of any other mitzvot that are in this category? Anyone know
of a good way to explain this idea to someone without a strong Jewish
background?
Thanks,
~Liron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071231/99b938be/attachment-0001.htm

> This refers probably to her remarking to her father that his decree
> was worse than Pharo's.
In researching what Miriam said to her parents, the following will
explain it in context:
Egypt enjoyed the free labor for over half a century before the
Pharaoh's astrologers foresaw the birth of an Israelite leader who
would end the slavery. Terrified at the economic ramifications of this
news, the Pharaoh ordered that all male babies born to Israelite
families be drowned in the Nile River. When two leaders of the
Israelites, Amram and his wife Yokheved, heard the news, they decided
to separate rather than continue to bring babies into the world to a
certain death. Many Israelite couples followed their lead and divorced
as well. Amram and Yokheved already had two children: a younger boy
named Aharon and an older girl named Miriam. Miriam vocally opposed
the separation, informing her parents that while Pharaoh was merely
preventing the propagation of male progeny, Amram and Yokheved were
preventing the propagation of any progeny ? male or female. Miriam's
parents listened to their daughter and remarried; the divorced
Israelite couples followed their lead. Just over six months later,
Yokheved gave birth to a healthy baby boy. The year was 2368 after
creation, or 1527 BC.
Now in the above context, there is no chutzpah or disrespect. Also,
Miriam wasn't being cute or presumptuous at all. She was demonstrating
a strong characteristic of bitochon and unwavering faith in HaShem. To
say that Pharaoh was merely preventing the propagation of male progeny
and her parents were preventing the propagation of any progeny ? male
or female was like giving them a pep talk. No one would ever compare
the motive of Pharaoh with the motive of her parents. That obviously
was not the comparison -- but rather a gentle push to motivate Amram
and Yokheved to be brave and defy Pharaoh.
KT/BR
ri
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071231/5fabcdc9/attachment.html

On Dec 31, 2007 1:22 AM, <T613K@aol.com> wrote:
>
> When there is a machlokes in Chazal that has halachic implications, we are
> not entitled to personal opinions. You can't follow Bais Shammai re Chanuka
> lights, for example, just because that appeals to you. You have to follow
> halachic process and ask shailos etc.
>
> But when there is a machlokes about how to understand a particular pasuk,
> I don't see why we shouldn't be entitled to personal opinions. I can't see
> anything wrong with saying, "This interpretation seems more plausible to
> me."
>
>
>
> *--Toby Katz
> =============*
>
When the Torah says don't eat BLOOD are we entitled so say we LIKE to eat
Blood?
The Gmara says YES
Kal Vachomer if hazal PASKEN one way does not mean I have to check my brain
at the door and say I like the other way beter, Hazla merely ask us to
FOLLOW the psak not to "obsequiescently" agree to it.
When I learned Gm'ara as a kid I don't recall any rebbe giving me a hard
time because I preferred R.Me'ir's svra over his bar plugta even though we
did NOT pasken like him! I don't recall any issur for "feeling" that the
halachah would be nice if we did it differently! We are bound to a
particular shita in deed, not in sevara!
--
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071231/da91f21b/attachment.html

On Dec 31, 2007 5:51 PM, Liron Kopinsky <liron.kopinsky@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Why can't non-Jews keep Shabbat?".
> Discussing it with friends we have basically come to the conclusion that
> the reason Shabbat is specific to Jews is because it is an Ot between us and
> Hashem. This logic would seem to similarly include Tefillin and Brit Mila
> (although for Mila I heard an idea recently that since it is possible that
> all goyim are bnei Avraham maybe they are chayav in Mila too).
> Does anyone know of any other mitzvot that are in this category? Anyone
> know of a good way to explain this idea to someone without a strong Jewish
> background?
> Thanks,
> ~Liron
>
RSR Hirsch's Horeb is replete with mitzovs sorted into different
categories Osos is one. I would check there first
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071231/592559b7/attachment.htm

On Dec 19, 2007 4:43 PM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Sun, December 16, 2007 8:04 am, R Jonathan Baker wrote:
> : Similarly, Cong. Or Zarua on the Upper East Side (C) bought a building
> : that had been the original synagogue of Cong. Kehillath Jeshurun (O)
> : until sometime around 1900, used by other congregations for 50 years,
> : then sold as a church in 1951, and then bought again as COZ about
> : 15-20 years ago. After some years, OZ knocked it down and built a
> : larger building.
>
> An intentionally contravercial question, simply because I can't
> justify what I would think is the obvious answer:
>
> Say one holds like RT about shituf for benei Noach.
>
> How could one rank a center which included institutionalized chilul
> Shabbos as a better use of the space than worship for benei Noach of a
> format permitted to them?
>
> SheTir'u baTov!
> -micha
>
> --
> Micha
totally tangentially. There was a C shul in Northern Manhattan into
wihich No O would set foot to daven, but when it was sold to a Church some
of the O's from both YU and Breuer community were upset. I found it hard
to understand what was bothering them, they never considered it a
Halachically valid shul to begin with?
-
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071231/42c7300d/attachment.html

One of the "standard" Chanukah questions is why the halachos of Chanukah
are not considered in Mishnayos. One of the standard answers, related in
the name of the Chasam Sofer, has always bothered me, as it goes
something like Rebbe did not include these Halachos because the
Chashmona'im had undermined the principle of La Yasur Shevet me'Yehuda
u'Mechokek me'Bein Raglav, thus usurping the power that rightfully
should have belonged to the House of the Nasi,
I always had difficulty assuming Rebbe was not enough of a Ba'al Mussar
to overcome such a seemingly petty antagonism.
I think, however, that the basis of the question is the contrast to
Purim, which is discussed extensively in its very own Mesechta. And a
recent Daf Yomi Yerushalmi establishes that the question is the other
way around: Why did Purim get that attention - i.e., really both
Chanukah and Purim should have continued beyond the redaction of
Mishnayos to remain relegated to Torah she'b'al Peh. Why did Purim get a
Mesechta?
Says the Yerushalmi (Megillah 20b):
Shimon bar Ba in the name of R' Yochanan: "V'zichram lo yasuf me'za'ram"
- from here [we derive the reason] why Chazal designated for it [Purim]
a tractate.
Were it not for that Yerushalmi, Purim would have has the same status as
Chanukah - which would have been the default status of a Yom Tov
d'Rabbanan of not being considered in detail in a Mishnah.
Yishma Chacham v'yosif lekach.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080101/e1406e3f/attachment.htm

>See H. Melachim 10:9.
After looking at the Rambam he seems to have 3 categories:
1) Mila, which he says everyone is chayav in, since all goyim are Bnei
Keturah
2) Shabbat, being "Osek Batorah", and being "mechadesh Davar" which are
prohibitted to goyim.
3) Tzedakah, Korban Olah and other mitzvot in order to "mekabel schar",
which are permitted.
Where is the line between 2 and 3? What mitzvot are included in each of
these categories and what makes them uniquely different from each other?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071231/3f335b56/attachment.html

> It seems to me that speaking LH about a non-Jew would fall in the
> category of a chillul haShem if it got back to the person or if any
> goy heard it or heard about it.
> It certainly would not do the Jew any good, so therefore for darchei
> shalom, it should be assur.
> ri
And based on this, I can add more controversy [grin]. After
propounding my theory of the Torah only dealing with cases of Eretz
Yisrael (viz. the ger toshav/gentile settler and the nochri/gentile
transient) and not cases of chutz (viz. our gentile neighbor while we
are in galut), and this lacuna being a mere loophole (IMHO), we can
say:
According to Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits, darchei shalom could be used as
a moral consideration to make an absolute prohibition against LH
regarding a gentile (I'm not sure whether it would be d'oraita or
d'rabanan; I need to study Not in Heaven some more). But since the
Talmud is sealed, we cannot do so. But were the Oral Law not written,
we'd be able to do this even today.
Mikha'el Makovi

>> Liron Kopinsky wrote: Long story short, the question arose "Why
can't non->>Jews keep Shabbat?".
> See H. Melachim 10:9. Basically the Rambam understands this to be a
> prohibition against inventing your own religion (what we might call
> cafeteria-style religion).
> David Riceman
The way I've always understood it, is that Shabbat is davka an oth
between us and Hashem. Thus Rambam forbids non-Jews to keep Shabbat
and study Torah, but explicitly permits them all other mitzvot, in
10:10.
But the thing that I've never been able to understand, and this is a
question on the Gemara itself:
Hashem blessed the Shabbat and declared it holy, long before Am
Yisrael existed. Furthermore, Shabbat testifies to the creation of the
world - should not gentiles acknowledge this too?
There is no problem understanding our obligation to keep Shabbat and
the gentiles' (hypothetical) exemption. What I cannot understand is
their (in reality) prohibition.
It is thus all the more surprising when Rav Hirsch (somewhere around
the end of chapter one of Bereshit or the beginning of two) and Rav J.
H. Hertz (in his essay at the end of Sefer Bereshit) both say that
Shabbat applies to all of humanity. This fits very well with logic
that Shabbat's testifying to God's creation applies to all of
humanity, but it doesn't fit well with the Gemara.
The only thing I can think of that Ravs Hirsch and Hertz can intend,
is that the Gemara, when it says that gentiles cannot keep Shabbat,
does not really intend this as a prohibition, but only as a polemic
against Christians who want to copy/replace/imitate Am Yisrael. But
there is no prohibition per se, for a gentile to keep Shabbat. This is
based on A. Cohen's Everyman's Talmud, which is certainly not a
halachic authority.
Does anyone else have a solution on why gentiles should be prohibited
to acknowledge God's creation, and what Ravs Hirsch and Hertz intend?
Mikha'el Makovi
------------------------------
Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.orghttp://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 1
*************************************
Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
avodah@lists.aishdas.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."